On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Garrett Cooper
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Matthias Apitz <[email protected]>
wrote:
El día Sunday, August 28, 2011 a las 07:27:49PM +0100, Chris Rees
escribió:
On 27 August 2011 20:32, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Hartmann, O.
<[email protected]> wrote:
This website should be brushed up or taken offline!
It seems full of vintage stuff from glory days.
http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html
Agreed. Things have changed quite a bit in the last decade.
It reads rather FUD-like too.
It's a pitty that the comments until now are only general like
"full of
vintage stuff", "agreed", "rather FUD", but without concrete
critics or
proposals of changes of wrong data.
Ok then:
1. It's out of date (the obvious). This comes down to some of the
information being completely incorrect as far as featuresets, and
just
looks embarrassing in other respects because it's using Windows 2000
as a comparison (it's a 10 year old OS).
2. Broken links.
3. The smiley icons are very unprofessional.
4. There's a lot of wasted horizontal space on the webpage.
5. There's no data to back up some of the claimed observations (what
version of FreeBSD, Linux, Windows were used; what performance
metrics
were obtained; how things were tuned; etc).
6. Some of the data (example: the SQL error text under "Performance"
in the Windows column) is in the wrong spot, s.t. it distracts
readers. If anything it belongs in the footnotes.
7. The breakdown is too terse. Execs and business types like looking
at bullet points; the technical folks like looking at things in more
gross detail.
One more:
8. Text like "The Linux community intentionally makes it difficult for
hardware manufacturers to release binary-only drivers." is
confrontational and unprofessional. It's the GPL license more than the
community that forces vendors to opensource proprietary code because
that's the primary goal of the license -- to keep the source free and
open -- whereas BSD allows the developer to do whatever they want with
the source.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Tiny nit on that: The linux community has made it clear (see GregKH's
many statements), that they will forever refuse to create a stable
ABI, for the express purpose of forcing hardware manufacturers to
submit to their will.
- Justin
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
